Meat Is a Number One Climate KillerAn Environmental Article from All-Creatures.org

From

Eating less meat is the most effective way to help
saving the climate!

We consume significantly more meat and sausages than acceptable from a
nutritional point of view. This harms not only our health and countless
animals; livestock production is also responsible for the largest impact on
the climate caused by man.

Despite much public discussion about climate change and measures against it,
matters like the consumption of animal products such as meat, milk and eggs
usually remain completely disregarded. Few people suspect that meat is a
number one climate killer. A spontaneous survey among pedestrians on the
Viennese Mariahilfer-street at the beginning of November 2009 also confirmed
this fact.

The International Dilemma

At the climate summit in Copenhagen starting December 7th, 2009, the elected
representatives of numerous nations will deliberate upon which strategy to
adopt in order to counteract climate change. So far, public debate is
dominated mainly by concerns about the traffic situation and people’s need
of thermal energy and electricity. However, these factors influence climate
change definitely much less than our diet does.

In order to be able to take sufficient climate-effective action additionally
to the concentration on traffic and the energy industry, big investments in
new technologies and structures are needed. Experts already sound the alarm
because single nations mercilessly haggle about the division of the
adjustment costs. No nation wants to spend more than others for adjustment
measures due to climate change, because these investments would then not be
available for the support of economic growth. Developing countries argue
that in comparison to rich countries they would lack the necessary money for
adjustment measures. Rich countries counter that the greatest damage to the
environment would be inflicted by developing countries and it would be
therefore necessary that precisely these countries ensure the largest
adjustment measures. Based on the positions of the national conference
speakers it appears thus that the originally planned agreement to an
internationally binding contract rests unachievable.

It is of course sensible to reflect upon the effects of our practice in all
aspects of our lifestyle. It is however extremely unreasonable to ignore
exactly the most effective measure against climate change: Our flesh
consumption is on the one hand responsible for a large part of man-caused
greenhouse gas emissions, but on the other it can, by being reduced,
counteract climate change without any investment into expensive new
technologies.

Marking Quality and Saving Imprudent Subsidies

Politically extremely effective climate protection would even be a source
for gigantic savings: At the moment the price of animal products such as
meat and milk is massively supported by tax money. Cattle farmers get paid
for their products a minimum price which cannot be realized on the free
market. Hence every produced liter of milk costs us tax money - even if we
do not buy it.

Because of the lack of systematical as well as unambiguous markings and
controls of quality standards, cheap products of low quality stand in matter
of price war in direct competition to high-quality products. If a
comprehensible, compulsory marking of high-class standards was introduced
and no more tax money were invested in the advertising of products like meat
and milk, the money from the national budget used up to now for that could
in future support more sensible measures. In our part of the world, the
consumption of meat, milk and eggs is unsoundly high. The government aid for
even more increase of the consumption of animal products is therefore not
only pointless, but even damaging for our health and our economy, because in
this manner economy is made dependent of governmental subsidies.

Animal friendlier keeping conditions have to be explicitly marked, so that
consumers may recognize reliably the different quality standards when they
purchase the products. Otherwise there is very little chance to detect the
higher quality. Consequently, farmers will finally be able to realize – even
without governmental subsidies - a fairer price for high-quality, animal
friendly products. Since better animal keeping conditions also involve a
higher amount of work, additional jobs would be created in the agriculture.

The animal products, which are anyway consumed in much too big amounts,
would thus become more expensive, yet also better. If the
competition-distorting governmental subsidies for animal products disappear,
fruit, vegetables and grain would again gain attractiveness in matter of
price, making it easier for us to eat healthier. Healthier people also
relieve our health insurance companies. Less sick people can be supplied
with substantially better services for the same amount of money.

Thus it would be possible for us not only to brake the climate change, spare
our budget and create additional jobs, but also to save countless animals
from being processed by machines without any consideration for their needs
and feelings.

The Facts

The FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) has
published in November 2006 a study regarding the most important factors of
Greenhouse gas emissions caused by man. This study is the accredited
reference for all other famous studies since. This study already classifies
animal production with 18 percent on top of traffic as the highest factor
responsible for gas emissions.

The FAO includes here emissions of Greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane and
nitrous gas caused by animal keeping and feed cultivation, but also to a
large extent emissions caused by fire clearings for pastureland and feed
cultivation. FAO ignores however the potential of woods lost through meat
production to bind the CO2 and to stabilize the climate. However, 70 percent
of the cleared rain forest surfaces are used for pastures and the production
of farm animal feed. 30 to 50 percent of the worldwide grain harvest and 80
percent of the worldwide soy harvest is fed to animals.

As a reaction to the FAO study, the World Watch Institute has also published
a study in November 2009 in order to integrate the factors which had been
ignored by the FAO 2006. According to the World Watch Institute Study,
animal production is actually responsible for 51 percent of the climate
change caused by man.

A study of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) published
in February 2009, which analyses the problem not only from the point of view
of the Greenhouse gas emissions, concludes that the climate change will cost
us forty billion (40.000.000.000.000) dollars by 2050. Up to 80 percent of
these costs (32 billions dollar) would not exist at all, if we reduced our
consumption of meat, milk and eggs. An example to illustrate what this
astronomic sum means: With this money more than 200 million one-family
houses amounting each to 150,000 US $ could be built - a new house for all
people in Europe, Russia, Australia and Canada together!

Eating less meat is the most effective way to help saving the climate!

Fair Use Notice: This document, and others on our web site, may contain copyrighted
material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owners.
We believe that this not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use
of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).
If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use,
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.